From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sendmail.purelymail.com (sendmail.purelymail.com [34.202.193.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11A061B4F2C for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 20:10:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767989424; cv=none; b=lxrqDDyzg7/jsUqwZboIaGT9tlKGYQwb+HNBDPhCTb9d8VFxou1G3IovglBBQBB9SsG2zepLgHquWE4BHgRDG6Xr4mNig8K6aSUA29t4pJb9jpSKUGR64+dPy9Bgy4XoK5R8kYULsgMdSf7y5jSaNzuEUMdYrOsbAq3IKDa2To4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767989424; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gUqw4oTauouFUKrLSatSb0LvIYRghad8VKuK5pYXTVE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ShD8IxMVAJzAhUVgOnUAQ9ETQ7bsooW2NC2Fxg5RbgXsBzwINgfVil/35zBnFizAbPetulRSfU/rURl0gZlRj/vhbflYQCyWCnjzcS4E1+WGDtSjDhfYgzqBeqYT70O1rwu1A/f/QdIdnErBo7zwaHWyKF4Y/RiHq6ggoJCiWsc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=tinyisr.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tinyisr.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tinyisr.com header.i=@tinyisr.com header.b=aGUUvou/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b=d1ZF9ih8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=tinyisr.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tinyisr.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tinyisr.com header.i=@tinyisr.com header.b="aGUUvou/"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b="d1ZF9ih8" DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=aGUUvou/yEufDOlW9Y9UGbuF099UYclEFtdyel1rDPICvUnKYiiarNBsFJNaP6pjGwLmxCtBk38BWb+xo04B43PYoG4sLDVSM72bE3ECrGOhYM1dAfaxVUbTes1N7Mezx5N02KwzCOO6eVMWYRZub+k4h+kHQoREbTVKFzUPtzpTyWEcYUVvwq/t/6GMi9LqWEJytPnyk+FH51oVSKtyCra5z0zqxNHzzYFXZaeuk1vkOeycQym4xEURym43BDSbhT9L3P3+5QucEyUn5kQ2iVKL+RmVb1CYwQSaGoIj4A6Zb8j0flvzYAN3m8aP+HUX/vbKbTDggrvFhVIkM+E7Mw==; s=purelymail2; d=tinyisr.com; v=1; bh=gUqw4oTauouFUKrLSatSb0LvIYRghad8VKuK5pYXTVE=; h=Received:Date:From:To:Subject; DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=d1ZF9ih8cupmxMPC5Z8CpDJSCpM6mJQ+T9g+X6kY0nxRuCADBZojDDQRJkaqgH7iFmEwYSIuBcORelkbig18M3mgcBbh9PYFcVSuqQCincVU7g00G2QS6siChD1UVCbvTtOkdf4W+XCCwjheycOSZAxunKVdR7YxZ6ZE87ufJV2JOQ5DnDNrGc73DOfq70chcGkHBuoZ7dQguBeuN5u9E9SxraRaR8Dv57uelTY+chydXsp5cdj7diR4+bEZiof8zIV3QmHUKiX9lWO90Z6NFMvyTCKittts9eDWQmxB1RjM/YrIFf3/ocJrzeWCw3G/KwobNGJWFgJ0wSvr7lSeXA==; s=purelymail2; d=purelymail.com; v=1; bh=gUqw4oTauouFUKrLSatSb0LvIYRghad8VKuK5pYXTVE=; h=Feedback-ID:Received:Date:From:To:Subject; Feedback-ID: 99681:12517:null:purelymail X-Pm-Original-To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.purelymail.com (Purelymail SMTP) with ESMTPSA id 1270081648; (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Fri, 09 Jan 2026 20:10:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 22:09:49 +0200 From: Joris =?utf-8?B?VmFpxaF2aWxh?= To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Simon Horman , netdev@vger.kernel.org, nbd@nbd.name, sean.wang@mediatek.com, lorenzo@kernel.org, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: ethernet: mtk_eth_soc: avoid writing to ESW registers on MT7628 Message-ID: References: <20260106052845.1945352-1-joey@tinyisr.com> <20260108150457.GI345651@kernel.org> <20260108083530.6169b627@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260108083530.6169b627@kernel.org> Hi Simon and Jakub, Thank you for the review. > registering alternate phy ops for MT7628. This would push the conditional > handling to probe rather than calback execution time. And I suspect it > would lead to a cleaner implementation. I wanted to keep the fix minimal and overlooked this as a potential solution. This will make the next revision way easier to follow. > Plus the commit message says: "Existing drivers never use the affected > features, so this went unnoticed." which makes it sound like user will > not notice the bad writes today? > > So perhaps we can go for the cleaner approach and stick to net-next > (without fixing the older kernels?). Sorry for not reading the commit > message closely enough on v1. Yes, current users should not be affected by the bug. I only ran into it while kernel hacking. The fix is not necessary to add to older kernels. Following your suggestions, v3 will target net-next and use separate phy ops for clarity.